Month: March 2008

While Obama “poses” as good guy, his campaign continues to try to bully Hillary Clinton out of the race. Not the first time for these Chicago thugs.

Democratic Superdelegates Obama is trying to strongarm into supporting him know there is much about Obama we all do not know. Increasingly, it becomes obvious to the sentient that Obama is a flim flam man. Obama, like all flim flam con artists is also a methodical and repetitive liar.

During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion — positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he has projected during his presidential campaign.

The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.

But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.

You won’t see any of these stacked up Obama lies on television.

The two questionnaires, provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama’s presidential campaign, were later supplied directly by the group, Independent Voters of Illinois — Independent Precinct Organization. Obama and his then-campaign manager, who Obama’s campaign asserts filled out the questionnaires, were familiar with the group, its members and its positions, since both were active in it before Obama’s 1996 state Senate run.

Through an aide, Obama, who won the group’s endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved — or even read — the latter questionnaire. [snip]

But the questionnaires provide fodder to question Obama’s ideological consistency and electability. Those questions are central to efforts by Obama’s presidential rival Hillary Clinton to woo the superdelegates whose votes represent her best chance to wrest the Democratic nomination from Obama.

What a shock. An inexperienced boob making mistakes.

Taken together — and combined with later policy pronouncements — the two 1996 questionnaires paint a picture of an inexperienced Obama still trying to feel his way around major political issues and less constrained by the nuance that now frames his positions on sensitive issues. [snip]

Consider the question of whether minors should be required to get parental consent — or at least notify their parents — before having abortion. [snip]

Both versions of the 1996 questionnaires provide answers his presidential campaign disavows to questions about whether Obama supports capital punishment and state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.”

He responded simply “No” and “Yes,” respectively, to those questions on both questionnaires.

But a fact sheet provided by his campaign flatly denies Obama ever held those views, asserting he “consistently supported the death penalty for certain crimes but backed a moratorium until problems were fixed.” And it points out that as a state senator, he led an effort to reform Illinois’ death penalty laws.

On guns, the fact sheet says he “has consistently supported common-sense gun control, as well as the rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

That was a curious argument to make in a Democratic primary. But Republicans will certainly seek to make it in the general election if Obama is the Democratic standard-bearer against the presumptive GOP nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Blame the staff, that’s what Obama does. You read it on Big Pink first.

It could also provide ammunition for a line of attack quietly peddled for some time by Republicans. They allege Obama has a penchant for blaming his staff for gaffes ranging from missing a union event in New Hampshire to circulating opposition research highlighting the Clintons’ ties to India and Indian-Americans to underestimating the amount of cash bundled for his campaigns by his former fundraiser, indicted businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

And the questionnaires play into storylines pushed by both Republicans and Clinton suggesting Obama has altered his views to appeal to differing audiences.[snip]

“One big issue was: Does he or does he not believe the stuff he told us in 1996?” said Aviva Patt, who has been involved with the IVI-IPO since 1990 and is now the group’s treasurer. She volunteered for Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign, but voted to endorse the since-aborted presidential campaign of Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and professed disappointment over Obama’s retreat from ownership of the questionnaire.

“I always believed those to be his views,” she said, adding some members of the board argued that Obama’s 1996 answers were “what he really believes in, and he’s tailoring it now to make himself more palatable as a nationwide candidate.”

Unbelievable, another way of saying “liar”.

Dobry, Patt and current IVI-IPO state chairman David K. Igasaki, a Clinton supporter, agreed Obama likely didn’t write every word of his campaign’s 1996 answers. But they all dismissed as unbelievable his presidential campaign’s assertion that Obama never saw or signed off on the state Senate questionnaires.

Big Media will not take notice of serial liar Obama but the people will and do increasingly notice that Obama is a flim flam man and liar. Yesterday we noted the clumsy Obama as flim flam man is trying to charm people who are not taken in by his “pose”. In the birthplace of the Reagan Democrat Obama tried to pretend that he is not the Chicago thug insider that he proves every day to be. Pretending disdain for “designer beers” Obama posed as friend of the working class. Obama’s constituents, whom Obama’s slumlord friend Rezko tormented, could have used a friend to the working class.

Hillary Clinton kicked off her North Carolina primary campaign last week at a technical school that bills itself “College for the Real World.” After some pleasantries and a stab at a basketball reference, she began to outline what she called “the problems that we face” as a nation.

“Our American workers work harder and are more productive than anyone,” she said. “And yet for too many, here in North Carolina and elsewhere, that hard work doesn’t seem to be paying off.”

That same morning, Barack Obama hit New York City for a speech on America’s housing crisis. He opened with a 300-word history of the Founding Fathers’ views on free markets.

“In the more than two centuries since then,” he said, “we have struggled to balance the same forces that confronted Hamilton and Jefferson—self-interest and community; markets and democracy; the concentration of wealth and power, and the necessity of transparency and opportunity for each and every citizen.”

The difference in those speeches helps explain Clinton’s success in fashioning herself as the “Working Class Hero” of the 2008 Democratic presidential race.

Hillary is people powered because Hillary understands what ordinary Americans who can’t afford to shop at Whole Foods are suffering.

Clinton makes for an unlikely modern Rosie the Riveter: a suburban-born corporate lawyer, a former first lady who never worked an assembly line, never picketed her employer. But across the country, particularly in manufacturing hubs feeling the pains of globalization, blue-collar voters have kept her candidacy alive.

Voters, analysts and political strategists trace that support to lingering affection for Clinton’s husband and the economic boom of his presidency — but only in part.

They also say a range of strategies has won Clinton working-class backing: her focus on economic problems and solutions, the clarity of her speeches, and a personal story of trial and survival that, in its own way, hits home with many voters suffering financially this year.

“For blue-collar Democratic voters choosing a candidate, the first question is usually, ‘Does he or she understand my life?‘ ” said Mark Kornblau, who advised former Sen. John Edwards in his unsuccessful presidential bid this year. He said Clinton has improved in that area over the course of the campaign. “I don’t think it’s natural, and I don’t think it comes from any real life experience … but she uses language that really describes what’s going on in people’s lives.” [snip]

Melissa Dunston and her husband bought a new house two years ago. She lost her job before they made the first payment. They started a trucking company. When fuel prices shot up last year, they lost that too.

Dunston identifies with Clinton’s public struggles. “To have been through everything she has, she really is ‘I have overcome,’ ” said Dunston, a public school teacher’s assistant.

Clinton’s campaign doesn’t have all the money it needs to keep pace with Obama, she added, “but they still make it. You think, ‘I can relate to that.’ “

Contribute directly to the campaign:

But the blue-collar vote delivered campaign-sustaining victories to Clinton in Ohio and Texas earlier this month. In both states, exit polls showed her beating Obama by 15 percentage points among voters who lacked a a college degree. She also won solid majorities among those who earn $50,000 a year or less.

Those voters figure to drive primary results in West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and North Carolina, which vote May 6; and Pennsylvania, next on the calendar, where polls indicate Clinton leads handily. They’re also a key piece of the Clinton campaign’s electability-themed argument to “superdelegates,” the Democratic elites who are all but assured of deciding the party’s nominee.

Barack Obama is today’s George Bush. Obama promises unity but so far has only served division. Obama supporters now threaten death and destruction at the Democratic Party National Convention if their precious Obama does not get the nomination. Obama supporters are threatening a fight at the convention. Our response: Knives or Guns?

Hillary has made it clear: we are convention bound. We will fight for the rights of Michigan and Florida voters. To get to Denver, Hillary needs financing, today.

In rally after rally in Indiana and North Carolina last week, voters booed and jeered when she mentioned that some Democratic leaders and unfriendly pundits believe she should leave the race.

“There are some people who are saying, you know, we really ought to end this primary, we just ought to shut it down,” Mrs. Clinton told a few thousand people who had gathered in Mishawaka, where a giant “Hoosiers for Hillary” sign served as a backdrop.

“No!” boomed the crowd.

If hopes are diminishing among some supporters of Mrs. Clinton — privately, many concede they do not see a clear mathematical path to winning the nomination — that word has yet to reach the voters here who filled gymnasium after gymnasium on her two-day trip through Indiana. The mood of the rallies and town meetings was far from the grim picture portrayed in the endless whirl of political chatter on cable television.

The people, of distressed communities in particular, want a fighter. They need a fighter.

“I know a little bit about comebacks,” Mrs. Clinton said with a knowing grin. “I know what it’s like to be counted down and counted out. But I also know there is nothing that will keep us down if we are determined to keep on.”

So the senator sought to steer the conversation back to the economy and away from prognostications about her candidacy, which was welcome news to voters, many of whom said they were furious at suggestions that Mrs. Clinton should bow out.

Roberta Weaver drove 90 miles to Fort Wayne from Kokomo and waited outside in 40-degree weather for nearly five hours to catch a glimpse of Mrs. Clinton as she walked into a diner for a discussion about the economy. When Ms. Weaver heard a reporter asking a few folks in the crowd about the outlook for the senator’s candidacy, she jumped in with a scolding.

“No way, no way should she get out of the race,” said Ms. Weaver, a 70-year-old retired nurse. “I think people are deceiving themselves if they think that she can’t win this. She’s stronger and her support is much stronger than what many people think.”

In Nevada Hillary won by going straight to the people, not the Culinary Workers Union whose membership voted for Hillary even though the union supported the unsupportable. In Massachusettes Hillary won by going straight to the people, not Kerry, Kennedy or Governor Patrick. Hillary is people powered. Obama is full of hot air.

While Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her family have been in Indiana so often they practically qualify as residents, Hoosiers’ best chance so far to see her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, is to turn on their TVs.

Obama, who was the first of the two Democratic presidential contenders to campaign in Indiana, has become the first to begin airing TV ads. His first ad, a 30-second spot focusing on jobs, began running on TV stations statewide this morning.

The ad comes on the first of a two-day campaign swing by Clinton that will take her to Mishawaka, Hammond, Fort Wayne and Muncie today, and Indianapolis and New Albany on Saturday.

By the end of the day Saturday, she, her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and their daughter, Chelsea, will have made a total of 22 campaign stops in 17 Indiana cities. In all, one or more members of the Clinton family will have been in Indiana on seven of 12 days.

Obama? He’s been here once, for a town hall meeting in Plainfield on March 15.

His campaign, though, says he’ll be back often.

Let’s not forget how Hillary won Ohio and Texas – people power. Obama, hot air ads.

Joe Hogsett, the former secretary of state who is heading Clinton’s Indiana campaign, said Clinton’s focus on Indiana shows “that Senator Clinton is going to work very hard in every corner of the state and compete for every Hoosier voter’s support.”

He said that in Ohio, Clinton was outspent 2-to-1 on TV ads by Obama, and by even larger margins in Texas. But Clinton, he noted, won the primaries in both states.

From the blue-collar hamlets of Allegheny County to the faded steel community of Johnstown, some of Obama’s thinnest support is in this region that gave birth to the term “Reagan Democrat” — white, working-class union voters who, in this fierce race for the Democratic presidential nomination, have favored Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in far greater numbers.

So Obama, unknown on the national stage until four years ago, aimed to identify. For the past two days, he’s wrapped himself in the sort of imagery that evokes familiarity with western Pennsylvania voters.

The people of Pennsylvania, post-Wright, see through the flim flam man. These hard working people are not fooled by Obama’s clumsy con man tricks. Read how clumsy Obama is when he is out of the arugula section of the Whole Foods emporium:

With a football tucked under his arm and a “Terrible Towel” in his hand, Obama posed with former Pittsburgh Steelers players Jerome Bettis and Franco Harris at the outset of his tour. He visited with hard-hatted workers at a steel mill and with patrons of a bowling alley. And he stopped by a sports bar Friday night to catch a bit of the NCAA basketball tournament. He sipped a Yuengling beer, but his local knowledge fell short when he confessed he didn’t know much about the regional brew widely consumed in Pennsylvania.

“You know I got a beer down there,” Obama said to a male patron. “What do they call it? A Yuengling?”

The people of Pennsylvania are not drinking the Obama kool-ade. They are drinking a Yuengling. Obama’s “designer beer” comment is so repulsive because it demonstrates how the flim flam man is trying to charm people who are not taken in by his “pose”. Repulsive.

We don’t see why the process should be short-circuited when millions of votes are yet to be cast and two qualified candidates believe themselves to be the best potential Democratic nominee. [snip]

And this contest is far from over. [snip]

One proffered justification for ending the campaign now, in fact, is the assumption that we know pretty much how everything will turn out. Ms. Clinton will win Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama will carry North Carolina and so on. But throughout this campaign, just about everything we’ve “known” has been wrong: Mr. McCain was finished, Ms. Clinton was inevitable, Mr. Obama had New Hampshire locked up. No doubt the Democrats have gotten themselves into a fix with rules that may leave the final decision to unelected superdelegates — but why is the answer to that less democracy? Why not give as many voters as possible a chance?

Maybe some day the Washington Post will come to the defense of Michigan and Florida voters and their right to be heard and to VOTE – or rather have their votes counted.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton brought her Democratic presidential campaign to Kentucky and Southern Indiana yesterday, telling cheering crowds that she knows how to turn the economy around and offering proposals to tackle housing, health care and energy problems. [snip]

“We have too many people who are facing insurmountable costs — gas, utilities, health care, mortgage, you name it,” Clinton said in New Albany. “That’s going to continue to compound our economic challenges. So we have to address these problems. You can’t ignore them.” [snip]

Obama has made only one campaign trip to Indiana and none to Kentucky this year. But his campaign opened a headquarters in Louisville yesterday and is running a commercial in Indiana.

“Fight” we all say.

Clinton supporters said yesterday that they were thrilled she has stayed in the race, despite Obama’s lead in delegates, so that their votes count despite Indiana’s and Kentucky’s late primaries.

“I want to tell her to stick it out to the end,” said Justin Westmoreland of Scottsburg, Ind., who begged the owner of the South Side Inn, one of his relatives, for the chance to attend yesterday’s event. “It’s a really close race.”

At the Manual rally, a hoarse Clinton looked at the crowd of about 2,500 and told them she was glad that she came.

Hillary is people powered because she speaks to the issues:

In her speech, she touched on issues ranging from education to the economy to international affairs.

She called for a new GI Bill to help the soldiers she would bring home from Iraq.

And she called for using money that has gone for tax breaks to oil companies to fund research into alternative energy.

“If you deliver for me, you will be able to count on me to deliver for you,” she told the crowd.

Clinton spoke without notes for 38 minutes and got some of her biggest applause when she promised to help students — many of them arrayed behind her — afford college tuition.

She promised to increase Pell Grants, put more money into need-based aid and resume offering low-interest government loans for students. She noted that she paid just 2 percent interest on her college loan, while some students today pay more than 20 percent.

“I didn’t feel like an indentured servant like a lot of kids do today,” she said.

She also called for a change in the way the federal government builds and maintains infrastructure such as roads, bridges and water and sewage treatment plants.

In recent years, the federal government has scaled back its role in construction and maintenance, relying more on state and local governments to find creative ways to finance such projects.

Kentucky, for example, is considering the possibility of using tolls to build two new Ohio River bridges at Louisville.

“I do not believe the answer to our problems is to sell off our public roads and our public bridges,” she said.

During her speech, she took a jab at Obama, who critics say is an accomplished speaker but has failed to provide policy specifics.

“This election isn’t about the speeches we give, it’s about the solutions we offer,” Clinton said.

But she saved her harshest criticism for President Bush, saying it’s time to move away from “government of the few, by the few, for the few.”

At the round-table discussion in New Albany — where the television lights and sound system tripped the restaurant’s electrical breakers several times — Clinton did as much listening as talking. A group of five Southern Indiana residents had been invited to be part of a panel to tell her their concerns about the economy. [snip]

She outlined proposals to give health insurance to all Americans while limiting premiums to rates that are based on household income. Under her plan, Clinton said, people would pay less and get more coverage.

“It’s morally wrong that people are without any insurance — working people — and I think it is economically nonsensical,” she said.

She said officials in Washington need to “get serious” about solving the nation’s problems.

“We can sit around and wring our hands or we can start solving our problems,” she said.

In a telephone interview Thursday from North Carolina, she said firmly: “There’s still a lot of votes to be counted and voices to be heard before we know who will have the nomination,” that the continuing campaign is strengthening, not weakening, Democratic chances in November, and that “I would certainly welcome” a debate with Barack Obama in Oregon before the state’s May 20 primary.

And she sounds as if nothing’s going to stop her and the Democratic presidential race — after going through Pennsylvania next month and then Indiana and North Carolina — from getting here.

“Part of what you have to do in campaigning for the toughest job in the world is show resilience and keep going,” Clinton said, “and that’s what I’ve done.”

Hillary not only talks about the rights of voters, Hillary is fighting for the rights of voters NOW (in all 10 states yet to vote and in Michigan and Florida).

“From my experience, voters are enjoying this. There’s a lot of excitement,” she says. “I haven’t yet gotten to Oregon, but I’m looking forward to getting there. Everywhere I’ve gone . . . the level of enthusiasm is very high, because this is going to matter and people are going to have their say.”

She cites a recent poll that found “22 percent said Barack should drop out, and 22 percent said I should drop out, and 62 percent said, ‘Let this go on.’ ” [snip]

“I also think that it’s imperative that we figure out how to we’re going to make sure that we don’t disenfranchise Michigan and Florida. I was strongly in favor of letting Michigan re-vote, the Democratic National Committee was as well, and Senator Obama’s campaign was opposed to that.”

Now Michigan and Florida, two states fairly vital to Democratic chances against McCain, are hanging on the edge of irrelevance, or maybe invisibility, at the Democratic convention. This is likely to have a considerably more negative effect on Democratic chances in November than anything Clinton or Obama say about each in April.

Hillary Clinton is a fighter and Americans like fighters. Big Media be damned.

“Obviously, the media counted me out after Iowa, and the voters in New Hampshire said, ‘Not so fast,’ ” Clinton says. “Then I was counted out before Super Tuesday, and the voters said, ‘Wait a minute, that’s not how we feel.’ Just recently, Ohio and Texas were watershed elections, and I won both of those. I really feel there’s a disconnect sometimes between the way our elections are reported and the way voters feel about them.”

So she drives on. If it seems that being the first major woman candidate for president has brought some more difficulties, and some easier derision, than 21st-century observers might have anticipated, Clinton is more into resilience than reflection.

“I’m sure I’ll have time to reflect on that at some point,” she says to the question. “. . . But I do often think about that wonderful saying that Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels . . .

“I have found this campaign personally very rewarding. I often refer to my mother, who was born before women could vote, who lived with us, and just the whole concept of my being one of the two people who could be the Democratic nominee for president is extraordinary.”

Just now, however, she’s not about to shut things down and settle for that.

Alright, this might not be the biggest Obama lie. There are so many big Obama lies to choose from we reserve the right to “extend and revise” our remarks.

Certainly ONE of Obama’s biggest lies is the idea, propounded as an article of faith in his cult, that Obama will change political reality as to what constitutes a winning margin for Democrats.

Obama and his incense burners say that it is not enough for Democrats to “only” be elected with 51% of the votes. Obama is oh so much more high minded than that. Obama premises his surrender-to-Republicans candidacy on getting such a huge election victory that he will then be able to solve all the problems this nation has been grappling with for decades, if not centuries by some sort of electoral alchemy.

Professor Hill’s “Think” system in The Music Man is a revolutionary CHANGE from previous music education. The “Think” system is premised on the Audacity of Hope. Professor Hill has zero music training, cannot play a musical instrument, and does not know or recognize one musical note from another.

The “Think” system states that if you “think” you can play a musical instrument, if you envisage yourself playing a musical instrument – you will play that musical intrument with technique and virtuosity. Just “Think” it. Imagine all those stupid music teachers and students in our schools lumbering with their outdated years of music training and practice when they can “Think” their way to Carnegie Hall. This is the Obama magic. “Think” it and years of electoral strife will end.

According to Obama it is not Republican resistance to Democratic ideas, nor Democratic resistance to Republican ideas that is the problem. For Obama the problem is that we American fools needed a messiah to show us our sinful ways. For Obama the problem is not that the different ideas on how to organize society, by the political parties, is worth fighting for. For Obama and his cult, the solution is always Obama.

For the Obama cult, Republican resistance, constitutionally protected Republican resistance, backed with wealth, power, and determination will all be overcome by the messiah Obama.

The incense burners believe messiah Obama can walk on water and overcome reality such as this:

We believe that Obama is flim flamiming the American public, aided and abetted by Big Media masters and that explains his nonsense ideas about elections and governing.

It is possible however that Obama does not grasp the very basic concept of “minority rights” in our form of government. In our form of government, or governments – when we examine the entire system of community, municipal, state and national governments, a minority can indeed block the majority with some ease. Call it checks and balances, the Federalist system, Democracy, whatever, but in our system of government legislative minorities can exert great power to block legislation. Throw in the judicial system and that “gridlock” which can be so frustrating is easily eplicated by individuals at the community or even national levels.

The second problem with Obama’s Biggest Lie is the one that is extra laughable.

Bill Clinton broke the “electoral lock” Republicans have held in American politics. Republicans essentially have had the confederate states of the south and western states as “sure win” states for them. This group of states committed to Republicans has restricted the states in play during elections. Obama, in full messiah mode, says he can not only break the electoral lock but also smelt it into Isiahian plowshares.

Obama says it is not “good enough” to win election by 51%. Obama, like a good flim flam man, has never provided an alternate number to 51%. All Obama does is deride the idea that “51% is not enough”.

What number does Obama think is a good number to win election by? No one has ever asked that simple question. Does Obama believe he could win election by 90%? 80%? 70%? 60%? Surely it has to be 60% or more – Obama’s entire big victory strategy can’t be to win with only 8% more than the tawdry 51%. So what exactly does Obama think is a “good enough” win? A flim flam artist will never tell.

Moreover, I would argue the Wright story turned off enough older white voters so that Obama can no longer argue that when compared with Clinton he will expand the electoral map in a general election with McCain.

Now he can simply say he will use a different map; a map that ultimately might expand for the party as a whole, even if his path to 270 is no less narrow a victory than Clinton’s. It is just different.

Obama will rely on greater strength west of the Mississippi, while Clinton will use the same Gore-Kerry map. She will simply promise that she will carry Ohio or Florida.

Democratic “Superdelegates” are now seeing what Obama’s (and Howard Dean’s) new losing electoral MATH is: humiliate and disenfranchise Big Electoral Vote Rich States like Florida and Michigan in exchange for small electoral vote states like Idaho and Wyoming.

BILL CLINTON: I believe those are the three reasons you ought to be for her: She’d be the best for the veterans, she’d be the best commander in chief, and she would certainly be the best at managing this economy. And finally, according to the evidence today, she’s also the most electable. She’s running ahead of Senator McCain in Ohio; her opponent’s running behind. She is ahead in Florida and Arkansas, a state that voted for me twice, ’cause I was the governor — they sort of had to, I guess — and voted for President Carter once. They haven’t voted for another Democrat in 44 years. This week’s survey in Arkansas: Senator McCain is leading Hillary’s opponent by 16 points; Hillary’s leading him by 15 points. So she can win this election. And, and, we need to change the direction of this country.

But it won’t be an easy race. John McCain is an honorable man, and as all of you know, he has paid the highest price you can pay for the United States, short of giving your life. And he and Hillary are friends; they like and respect each other. They have big disagreements on foreign policy and economic policy, they have taken reluctant Republican senators all over the world to prove that global warming is real but there is a way to deal with it that grows the economy and doesn’t shrink it. And we now have a bipartisan majority in the Senate to do something about this. That’s the kind of leadership this country needs.

And I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who love this country and were devoted to the interests of the country, and people could actually ask themselves, who’s right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics. So that’s my argument for her. She’d be the best for veterans, the best commander in chief, the best for the economy, and is the most electable.

As recently as 2000, Democrats were outraged that, due to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush vs. Gore, not all of Florida’s presidential votes counted. In 2008, advanced thinkers supporting Sen. Barack Obama have persuaded themselves that fairness dictates that none of them should count. Nor Michigan’s, either. Better that the voters of two critical swing states comprising close to 10 percent of the electorate be disenfranchised than that Obama’s inevitable nomination be delayed. Nobody’s expected to notice the main reason that Team Obama faulted every suggested revote plan: He wouldn’t stand the proverbial snowball’s chance of winning either state’s primary. Rather than face that unpleasant truth, his supporters proposed various compromises with one common denominator: that Obama be awarded delegates he hasn’t won. That this strikes them as reasonable reflects the deep unreality into which roughly half the Democratic party has fallen. Once again, with feeling: The votes belong to the voter, not the candidates. Oddly, it’s Sen. Hillary Clinton, who grasps that elementary democratic principle, who critics say feels entitled to the presidency. Meanwhile, TV pundits like CNN’s Jack Cafferty warn us that should Obama’s supporters be disappointed in their hopes, “you wouldn’t want to live in this country.” A more concise way of turning the November contest into a racial referendum can’t be imagined. Who will win that one ? Then what ?

In Time, Mark Halperin provides a list of “Painful Things Hillary Clinton Knows—Or Should Know.” No. 7: “The Rev. Wright story notwithstanding, the media still wants Obama to be the nominee—and that has an impact every day.” We’ve come full circle. So confident have the Beltway media courtiers grown in their social and political status that what once was furiously denied is now boasted about. Politicians may come and go, but Chris Matthews, Howard Fineman, Tim Russert and Maureen Dowd preside over a permanent House of Lords. [snip]

Instead of fighting for the primacy of Democratic voters in a Democratic nomination race, Howard Dean has abandoned Democratic voters. Howard Dean must go.

Howard Dean is not alone in abandoning Democratic voters. His appointment of Donna Brazile to Chair the Voting Rights Institute of the Democratic National Committee is emblematic of the abandonment of Democratic voters. Of course the confusion at the Voting Rights Institute is such that it is hard to determine who is in charge at the moment. But it is clear that Donna Brazile has sided against the nomination process, with voters voting, and all delegates to the convention voting. Donna Brazile has even vowed to resign from the DNC if things do not develop as she thinks they should. According to Donna Brazile “Superdelegates” voting according to their conscience would somehow be undemocratic.

What escapes Donna Brazile is the reality that if all Superdelegates decided to take a page from Obama’s voting history and vote “present” at the Democratic National Convention neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama would have sufficient votes to get the nomination.

Donna Brazile wants to “mau-mau” the Superdelegates into voting for Obama.

Donna Brazile and Howard Dean are not alone.

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives,i also wants to cook the books for Obama. Pelosi’s position as co-chair of the Democratic Convention makes her shilling for Obama extra nefarious. Instead of being truly impartial and letting the Democratic process play out Nancy Pelosi is putting her fingers on the scales. Nancy Pelosi has stated repeatedly that a unity ticket of Clinton/Obama is impossible (we agree with her on that point at least). Nancy Pelosi has also stated, like Donna Brazile, that Superdelegates should ignore their voting rights and follow the delegate count. That is in violation of the very reason why “Superdelegates” are given a vote in the Democratic nomination process. Of course, Nancy Pelosi says these things in order to tip the scales to Obama and attempt to create a sense of momentum for Obama. Most egregiously Nancy Pelosi has also argued against a revote in Michigan and Florida, thereby disenfranchising Democratic voters in these two states.

Nancy Pelosi should resign as a co-chair of the Democratic Convention because she has proven over and over again she is not a fair and neutral minister in this Democratic nomination race.

But this dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.

During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier: “I believe super-delegates have to use their own judgment and there will be many equities that they have to weigh when they make the decision. Their own belief and who they think will be the best president, who they think can win, how their own region voted, and their own responsibility.’”

Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party’s strongest nominee in the general election.

We support a NO Donations without representation posture on the part of Democratic donors.

* * *

Hillary Clinton is fighting for the rights of Democratic voters. If necessary the Democratic nomination process will end at the Party convention in Denver.

Hillary Clinton said “Let’s have the Democratic party go on record against seating the Michigan and Florida delegations three months before the general election? I don’t think that will happen. I think they will be seated. So that’s where we’re headed if we don’t get this worked out.”

Speaking to several hundred supporters in Parkersburg on Wednesday, the former president said division among the Democratic presidential candidates is nothing to be concerned about, and if politicians don’t want to get “beat up,” they shouldn’t run.

Clinton rejected calls from some “elite” members of the Democratic Party who are suggesting his wife bow out of the race so as not to divide the party.

He says now is not the time, as his wife is gaining ground on Obama.

“Let’s just saddle up and have an argument. What’s wrong with that?”

Clinton told the crowd that his wife has better plans than Obama on the economy, health care and the war in Iraq.

“It’s interesting that the Obama campaign often gets its back up when we say that their campaign is just words,’’ Singer said. “But I think few things illustrate this point better than what Sen. Obama is doing with regard to Florida and Michigan.’’

Obama is campaigning with ads in Pennsylvania that speak of his record as a young civil rights worker, Singer says, but “now he only wants to count some of the votes.’’ [snip]

“We could have avoided the entire Bush presidency if we had counted votes in Florida,’’ Singer said. “The fact that Sen. Obama is endangering and jeopardizing Democratic prospects’’ in two states vital to winning in November is “unacceptable.’’

“The general election is going to be very, very close,’’ said Harold Ickes, a senior adviser to the Clinton campaign, calling Republican Sen. John McCain a “formidable’’ opponent. “Florida, I think we have a real shot at winning this year, if Hillary is leading the ticket… Slapping these people in the face is not the way to engender support,’’ Ickes added.

Daniel Baer a faculty fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard and a supporter of Hillary Clinton makes some additional points:

It is now clear that superdelegates will ultimately decide the Democratic nominee for president, so the campaigns for both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have been making their case for what these party pooh-bahs ought to do.

Senator Obama’s camp asserts that superdelegates need to vote for whoever wins more pledged delegates – almost certainly him. Senator Clinton’s team contends that her often-decisive victories in large and swing states – crucial battlegrounds in the November election – should compel superdelegate support. [snip]

It is a superdelegate’s duty to reflect carefully on each candidate’s strengths, on how she or he would fare in a general election, and how he or she would perform as president.

In wooing superdelegates, Obama’s campaign must make the case that he can go the distance, withstand Republican attacks, and reach beyond the core demographics that have supported him in caucuses and primaries thus far.

Here’s where the Clinton campaign’s counterargument comes in: Her wins with key Democratic constituencies in large states and swing states, and a possible popular-vote edge, provide a compelling reason for superdelegates to tilt her way. [snip]

We know that there will be more focus on policy differences than there is in a primary, where voters often have the luxury of picking on personality. We know that in 2008, the economy, healthcare, and security are likely to be the top issues for voters. And we know that recent GOP wins have been built upon inroads with three groups: Latinos, so-called security moms, and working-class whites.

Clinton’s campaign must continue to demonstrate that she has the substance – the Clinton track record on the economy, her nuanced command of foreign policy – and the strength with key demographics that will be necessary to win the general election, especially in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

There has been an inordinate amount of handwringing about the superdelegates among Democratic activists and the punditry:

“Oh no,” they lament. “The unelected superdelegates are going to make the call. No one imagined this nightmare scenario when they created these party rules!”

Hogwash. There is no reason to assume that the prospect of a virtual tie in pledged delegates didn’t occur to the designers of the system. Indeed, it is precisely in a case like this that having superdelegates makes sense. The purpose of such a format is to help the Democratic Party choose the best candidate when one has not been convincingly rendered by the primaries and caucuses. [snip]

It may be politically difficult for superdelegates to bracket consideration of pledged delegates, but their hopefully principled commitment to the Democratic Party demands that they do so. After all, Obama has staked his campaign in part on reminding us that judgment certainly doesn’t mean following the crowd.

As voters and caucusgoers, we have supported the person we believe in. Superdelegates have a special duty: As party leaders, they must set aside the passions of the moment, draw upon their experience and their judgment, and choose a candidate who can win and who can govern.

* * *

Superdelegates have a lot of factors to consider. The latest anti-jewish, anti-Italian remarks from Obama’s “Pastor” of 20 years must be considered. Every day new statements come to light which Obama must deal with.

Did we mention the recess in the Rezko trial will be over at the end of March?

28% of Clinton supporters go to McCain if she’s not the nominee.
19% of Obama supporters go to McCain if he’s not the nominee.

Many of these voters no doubt take their cue from Michelle Obama who refuses to support Hillary Clinton when Hillary wins the nomination.

As repulsive as Michelle Obama’s comments are, the most repulsive premise of the Obama campaign is that he can only win the Democratic nomination by disenfranchising Democrats in Michigan and Florida.

Readers of Big Pink will recall we supported the New Hampshire recount even as many bemoaned the “sore loser” attitude of Hillary oppenents. Granted we did so partly out of joy in reliving the great New Hampshire victory. But our prime reasoning was that every vote should be counted and because there should be full confidence in our election process.

Democratic voters and respect for their votes and will must be the guiding principle in the Democratic nomination process. Those that do not understand or do not wish to respect this simple principle must step aside.

“… .. I don’t think the nominee of the party will be considered legitimate if we don’t figure out how to count those votes from Michigan and Florida. … ” – Senator Hillary Clinton

Howard Dean has failed to represent Democrats. Howard Dean has failed to protect the rights of all Democrats to vote. Howard Dean has failed to ensure that the will of Democratic voters is respected.

Howard Dean was elected Chairman of the Democratic National Committee on a promise of reform but instead he has become a creature of bureaucracy.

Howard Dean was elected Democratic National Committee Chairman on a promise of a 50 state strategy. What Democrats have instead is a 48 state strategy. Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan have been evicted from the Democratic “Big Tent”.

Howard Dean, failed to do what he promised to do. It’s time for Howard Dean to go.

* * *

The prime duty of the Chairman of the Democratic Party is to fight for the interests of Democratic voters. All Democratic voters.

The job of Chairman is not merely to manage the organizational structure of the Party. Managing the organization is important but when that bureaucratic function conflicts with the interests of Democratic voters, the interests of Democratic voters is paramount.

Lost in the back and forth arguments about Florida and Michigan are the rights of Democratic voters. It’s the voters, stupid.

Chairman Dean forgot his primary job is not to arbitrate disputes between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Chairman Dean forgot his primary job is not to try to smooth the waters or protect the bureaucracy. The primary job of the Democratic Chairman is to ensure that the will of Democratic voters is respected. It’s that simple.

After the voter disenfranchisement (Yes, the stolen election) in Florida, in 2000, which burdened the nation with George W. Bush, the Democratic Party should have learned to fight to make sure THAT EVERY VOTE COUNTS AND EVERY VOTE IS COUNTED.

Howard Dean has not learned that lesson from 2000. It’s time for Howard Dean to go.

* * *

The consequences of Chairman Dean’s failures hurt all Democrats, but particularly Florida and Michigan Democrats. Even now Chairman Dean surrenders veto power on voting rights in Florida and Michigan to the Democratic presidential candidates. No thought of the rights of Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan spurs Chairman Dean to action.

Chairman Dean’s surrender of a veto pen to Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) has resulted in failure to respect the Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan. Barack Obama’s successful veto of voting rights, to praise from Republicans like David Brooks, echoes his successful electoral strangulation of election opponents, such as Alice Palmer, in Illinois.

Howard Dean and Barack Obama may insist Florida’s Democratic presidential primary was meaningless, but a new poll shows Florida Democrats aren’t buying it, and one in four may not back their party’s nominee in November if Florida winds up with no voice in the nomination.

Not only do Florida Democrats say that the Democratic presidential contenders’ boycott of their primary had little effect, but an overwhelming plurality want the officially meaningless results to count, a new St. Petersburg Times/Bay News 9 poll finds.

A record 1.75-million Florida Democrats voted in the Jan. 29 primary, which Hillary Rodham Clinton won by 17 percentage points, but as punishment for holding the primary earlier than allowed by the national party, no delegates were at stake. Now, as a nomination stalemate looms, the candidates and state and national party leaders are struggling to figure out how and if America’s biggest swing state can have a voice in the Democratic nomination.

“If there’s one thing that this survey says is you have to acknowledge the Jan. 29 primary on some level,” said pollster Tom Eldon. “You really can’t say the Florida primary was a non-event to voters. It was a non-event to Howard Dean according to the rules of the DNC.” [snip]

Florida Democrats point the finger of blame for the primary debacle in several directions: 28 percent blame Republican leaders in the Legislature, 25 percent blame Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, and 20 percent blame the Florida Democratic party.

More than three out of four Florida Democrats say it’s “very important” that Florida’s delegates count toward the nomination, and one in four said they would be less likely to support the ultimate Democratic nominee if Florida’s delegates don’t count. [snip]

The poll suggests most Florida Democrats viewed the Jan. 29 primary as a legitimate election.

Howard Dean should have cared about the voters of Florida and Michigan if he truly believed in the 50 state strategy.

Howard Dean Must Go

* * *

Hillary Clinton and her supporters are not going away. As of last night, the fight moves to Pennsylvania – and then to the Democratic Party convention in Denver this August.

Echoing remarks we made at the end of a recent post (Pennsylvania is the Avenue to the White House. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Let’s get there.) last night Hillary said: “the road to Pennsylvania Avenue leads through the state of Pennsylvania”

The Democratic race is a “long way from being over,” Hillary Clinton told FOX News on Wednesday, and she has no qualms about taking the primary fight all the way to the convention floor. [snip]

But neither candidate is expected to lock down the nomination on pledged delegates before the August convention. And although Democratic leaders are scrambling to avoid a prolonged fight that could give GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain a decided advantage, Clinton said Wednesday there are too many ifs for the matter to be settled yet.

“Well this is a really close election. Despite what some might say, it is a very close election in the popular vote and in the delegates,” she said. “We have 10 contests ahead of us, plus, don’t forget, Florida and Michigan. You know, I keep beating this drum … millions of people are going to be voting in the next three months, and I hope that will include Florida and Michigan.”

Clinton’s campaign has argued for seating the Michigan and Florida delegations, which were stripped after those states held early primaries in violation of party rules. Recent efforts to hold re-votes in those states have fallen through. [snip]

Clinton said, barring a resolution on Florida and Michigan, the fight goes to convention.

“You know, you can always go to the convention. That’s what credential fights are for,” he said. “Let’s have the Democratic party go on record against seating the Michigan and Florida delegations three months before the general election? I don’t think that will happen. I think they will be seated. So that’s where we’re headed if we don’t get this worked out.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hillary is a fighter. We are fighters. We’ll have more in Part II.

Here are some action items to prepare for which we will also discuss in Part II (coming this afternoon):

Senator Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton are coming Back to the Bay Area & Central Valley!

Sunday, March 30th, 2008
Lunch Reception with President Bill Clinton in Modesto:
At 12:30 p.m. join President Clinton for a lunch reception in Modesto at the home of Rupinder & Amarjit Dhaliwal, M.D. The cost of the event is $1,000 per person. For more information or to RSVP, contact Sabra Foley at 415-402-0303 or go to www.hillaryclinton.com/modesto

Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008
Reception with Senator Clinton in Menlo Park:
At 6:00 p.m. please join John Doerr in welcoming Senator Clinton for a reception in Menlo Park at the Quadrus Conference Center. The cost of the event is $500 per person. To attend the 5:00 p.m. VIP reception the cost will be $2,300 per person and will include a picture with the Senator. For more information or to RSVP, contact Marina Costabile at 415-402-0303 or go to www.hillaryclinton.com/menlopark

Thursday, April 3rd, 2008 (*please note time change)
Breakfast with Senator Clinton in San Francisco:
At 8:00 a.m. join Senator Clinton for breakfast at The Merchants Exchange Building in the Julia Morgan Ballroom in San Francisco. The cost of the event is $250 per person. To attend the 7:30 a.m. VIP reception the cost will be $2,300 per person and will include a picture with the Senator. For more in formation or to RSVP, contact Sabra Foley at 415-402-0303 or go to www.hillaryclinton.com/sanfrancisco

Northern California: To update those not in the Bay Area, we are organizing a demonstration at our California State Democratic Convention in San Jose—on Friday March 28th when Nancy Pelosi will be speaking. The theme is Voter Disenfranchisement/Voter Issues. We are not wearing Hillary shirts, caps, buttons, etc. It’s NOT about the candidates. It’s about our votes…our voices…As stated in the petition, it’s not just MI & FL; I think we all agree that there is an underlying theme in our political parties that disenfranchising voters is acceptable. 1) DNC disenfranchised MI & FL voters 2) Caucuses – are these inclusive? We’ve seen how these work and how they disenfranchise voters and 3) Open primaries! So it’s okay for Republicans to vote in a Democratic primary, but vote Republican in the general election—throwing an election? Astonishing!

Please sign the petition, and if you can, bring your hand made posters and join us at the SJ Convention Center at 4:30pm.

Breaking News: In a failed attempt to revive his flagging spirits and droopy hopes with a retreat to the Virgin Islands, Barack Obama is also fighting a deadly case of Floriphobia and Michiphobia complicated with a virulent case of Wrightspepsia.

The onset of Floriphobia and Michiphobia as well as the Wrightspepsia was triggered by increasing public notice of “disconnects” between what Obama said before a certain “race” speech and what Obama said during the speech.

Extra incense is being burned round-the-clock in large bronze braziers by grieving acolytes in hopes of warding off an Obama collapse.

An anticipated appearance in a Tampa, Fla., church by Barack Obama’s former pastor and spiritual adviser — his first since his inflammatory sermons drew national scrutiny — has been canceled due to security concerns, according to the senior pastor at the church.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. had been expected to speak at the Bible-Based Fellowship Church of Temple Terrace for three nights starting Tuesday evening. [snip]

Mason said the church was under no pressure from the Obama campaign to cancel the appearance.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a wide-ranging interview today with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporters and editors, said she would have left her church if her pastor made the sort of inflammatory remarks Sen. Barack Obama’s former pastor made.

“He would not have been my pastor,” Clinton said. “You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” [snip]

The Clinton campaign had refrained from getting involved in the Wright controversy, but Clinton herself, responding to a question this morning, denounced what she said was “hate speech.”

“You know, I spoke out against Don Imus (who was fired from his radio and television shows after making racially insensitive remarks), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that,” Clinton said. “I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving.”

Doctors on the scene applied cold compresses to Obama’s forehead as he feverisly mumbled “No way I can win Florida or Michigan now.” and “No Florida or Michigan delegates would make a nomination illegitimate.” “Ohh, Ohh.”

More incense was ordered burned.

The feverish Obama had to be restrained and strapped to bed when he overheard an incense burner suggest that the Wrightspepsia might flare up as a topic of discussion in a debate scheduled a few days before the Pennsylvania elections. Doctors fear onset of Pennsyphobia to further complicate an already complicated prognosis.

Medical professionals at Big Pink, a compassionate website, recommended a temporary treatment (below) for Michiphobia to the Obama worship team. No known cure, other than a fair representation of Florida voters, for Floriphobia and the complications caused by Wrightspepsia are known.

Barack Obama needs to talk to his secret supporter, Al Sharpton, to understand the full mess he is in.

While Big Media ignores Obama’s lies about what he knew and when he knew it, in order to discuss bogus charges against Hillary in Bosnia – Obama is at the beach worrying about tonight’s “sermon” by “Pastor” Wright in Tampa Bay, Florida. Obama should leave the beach and put a call in to Al Sharpton.

“Pastor” Wright and now the new “Pastor” of Obama’s Church are fast becoming Barack Obama’s Tawana Brawley.

Barack Obama has tried to craft his image as a “post racial” leader. To that end Obama has tried, for this presidential campaign, to differentiate himself from African-American leaders like Al Sharpton who are viewed as more “militant”.

Al Sharpton recognizes how toxic he is to Obama and has kept his support quiet – even as he appears on television shows as an “impartial” observer of this election. Obama is complicit in this Sharpton deception.

Al Sharpton has been an advocate in the African-American community for years. Al Sharpton has gained a degree of respectability, particularly regarding the Vieques issue. But Al Sharpton destroyed his chance for mainstream political acceptance because of Tawana Brawley.

In the same way Al Sharpton destroyed his political viability because of his inability to separate himself from Tawana Brawley – Barack Obama has destroyed his political viability because of his acceptance of his 20 year relationship, financial support of, and refusal to disown – “Pastor” Wright.

The Rev. Al Sharpton is backing Barack Obama, but he’s made the strategic decision to keep his support quiet.

That’s the message Sharpton delivered to his flock last Saturday as he boasted of talking to Obama “two or three times a week” – and insisted the Democratic front-runner knows the rev is in his camp.

“I said, ‘I’m gonna do whatever I gotta do to help you. [snip]

“‘I won’t either endorse you or not endorse you,'” Sharpton said he told the Illinois senator as the two made their way to a Nov. 29 dinner at Sylvia’s Restaurant in Harlem. “‘But I will tell you I can be freer not endorsing you to help you and everybody else.'” [snip]

Sharpton told Obama that it would be better strategically for him to remain publicly neutral.

“If I endorse you, and they jump on somebody in Jena, you’re going to want me not to go because the press is going to ask you what about your supporter,” Sharpton said.

An endorsement from the controversial Sharpton is a double-edged sword, impressing some voters and driving others away.

In all likelihood Obama wanted a public endorsement by Al Sharpton in order to recreate a “momentum” effect. Obama has been trying to create “momentum” in order to force Hillary from the race all throughout this election. The voters in New Hampshire, Nevada, California, Ohio and Texas (and soon Pennsylvania) continue to upend Obama’s fake “momentum” narrative. But Obama is cooperating in the Sharpton deception regarding his secret Obama support.

Former prosecutor Steven Pagones said Monday that his victory over the Rev. Al Sharpton and two other advisers to Tawana Brawley in his racially charged, $395 million lawsuit was bittersweet. [snip]

The jury found Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements about Pagones, Maddox for two and Mason for one. Pagones, a former assistant county prosecutor, is white; the defendants are black. [snip]

A jury of four whites and two blacks ruled that Sharpton, Maddox and Mason defamed Pagones in accusing him of raping black teen-ager Tawana Brawley in 1987. [snip]

The racially inflamed case began in 1987, when Brawley, then 15, was found four days after disappearing from her home. She was found in a garbage bag with dog feces smeared on her body and racial epithets scrawled on her. She claimed a gang of white law enforcement officers had abducted and raped her.

Eventually, a grand jury pronounced her story a hoax, exonerating Pagones.

But during the furor that preceded the investigation, Sharpton, Maddox and Mason leveled repeated, unsubstantiated charges that Pagones was among those who abducted and raped Brawley.

Former Mayor Ed Koch surprised an almost exclusively black audience yesterday by telling the Rev. Al Sharpton he had spoiled his chance to become “a crossover leader” by refusing to apologize for “the Tawana Brawley hoax.”

Koch was speaking at a conference sponsored by Sharpton’s National Action Network when he brought up his relations with Sharpton.

“I admire him even when we disagree. I always believed he was a bona fide leader when others said he was not,” Koch told the crowd of about 100 people at the New York Sheraton.

But the former mayor said Sharpton’s role in the controversy concerning the upstate black teenager 20 years ago was a stain on his record that kept him from winning white supporters.

“If you would have apologized for the Tawana Brawley hoax, you’d be a crossover leader,” he said.

The answer is that one “bargains.” Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America’s history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer’s race against him. And whites love this bargain — and feel affection for the bargainer — because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence. [snip]

His actual policy positions are little more than Democratic Party boilerplate and hardly a tick different from Hillary’s positions. He espouses no galvanizing political idea. He is unable to say what he means by “change” or “hope” or “the future.” And he has failed to say how he would actually be a “unifier.” By the evidence of his slight political record (130 “present” votes in the Illinois state legislature, little achievement in the U.S. Senate) Barack Obama stacks up as something of a mediocrity. None of this matters much. [snip]

And yet, in the end, Barack Obama’s candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton’s or Jesse Jackson’s. Like these more irascible of his forbearers, Mr. Obama’s run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance. Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson were “challengers,” not bargainers. They intimidated whites and demanded, in the name of historical justice, that they be brought forward. Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin.

Steele kinda sorta makes our “Tawana Brawley” point:

But bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don’t know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.) Mr. Obama has said of himself, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . .” And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama’s Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a “blank screen.”

Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama’s political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday — for 20 years — in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable. His pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage (“God damn America”).

How does one “transcend” race in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol?

What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn’t thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to “be black” despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn’t this hatred more rhetorical than real? [snip]

No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His is the story of a man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself.

Before Easter Sunday Obama defended his judgment by saying there is nothing wrong with his church. Obama, in a radio show aired on Monday but recorded earlier said This is not a crackpot church. [snip] This is a pillar of the community and if you go there on Easter on this Easter Sunday and you sat down there in the pew you would think this is just like any other church.

Here is the Easter Sunday sermon Obama defended in advance as the sort of sermon you would hear in “any other church” on an Easter Sunday:

Obama sought to explain that relationship and why he could not end this close association, despite the minister’s hate-filled rhetoric. He said, “There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?”

Yes, those are the questions that people are asking. [snip]

Sen. Obama in his speech acknowledged that the rantings of his minister are “inexcusable,” but stated, “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”

Before we discuss his grandmother, let’s examine the impact of Rev. Wright’s statements on the senator’s two daughters. Nothing says it better than a song from the musical “South Pacific,” to wit, “You have to be taught to hate and fear…You’ve got to be carefully taught.” Few dispute that Rev. Wright’s sermons are filled with hate. Why didn’t Obama stand up in the church and denounce his hateful statements or, at the very least, argue privately with his minister? It was horrifying to see on a video now viewed across America the congregation rise from the pews to applaud their minister’s rants.

Now to Obama’s grandmother. There was a time spanning the 70’s to the mid-90s when many blacks and whites in large American cities expressed the same feelings on street crime held by Obama’s grandmother. Indeed, the Rev. Jesse Jackson made similar comments in 1993 at a meeting of his organization, Operation Push, devoted to street crime. According to a Nov. 29, 1993, article in the Chicago Sun Times, he said, “’We must face the No. 1 critical issue of our day. It is youth crime in general and black-on-black crime in particular.’ Then Jackson told the audience, ‘There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved . . . After all we have been through,’ he said. ‘Just to think we can’t walk down our own streets, how humiliating.’”

Isn’t that exactly what Obama’s grandmother was referring to? To equate her fears, similar to Jesse Jackson’s, with Wright’s anti-American, anti-white, anti-Jew, and anti-Israel rantings is despicable coming from a grandson. In today’s vernacular, he threw her under the wheels of the bus to keep his presidential campaign rolling. For shame.

What is it that I and others expected Obama to do? A great leader with conscience and courage would have stood up and faced down anyone who engages in such conduct. I expect a president of the United States to have the strength of character to denounce and disown enemies of America — foreign and domestic — and yes, even his friends and confidants when they get seriously out of line. [snip]

It is also disturbing to me that Obama’s wife, Michelle, during a speech in Wisconsin last month, said, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

Strange. This is a woman who has had a good life, with opportunities few whites or blacks have been given. When she entered Princeton and Harvard and later became a partner in a prestigious law firm, didn’t she feel proud to be an American?

When she and the senator bought their new home, was there no feeling of accomplishment and pride in being a U.S. citizen? When her husband was elected to the state legislature and subsequently to the United States Senate, didn’t she feel proud of her country?

It’s been more than a month since I began warning Sen. Barack Obama that he would become answerable for his revolting choice of a family priest. But never mind that; the astonishing thing is that it’s at least 11 months since he himself has known precisely the same thing. “If Barack gets past the primary,” said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the New York Times in April of last year, “he might have to publicly distance himself from me. I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.” Pause just for a moment, if only to admire the sheer calculating self-confidence of this. Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well, in other words, that he’d one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago “base” in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver.

You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.)

Looking for a moral equivalent to a professional demagogue who thinks that AIDS and drugs are the result of a conspiracy by the white man, Obama settled on an 85-year-old lady named Madelyn Dunham, who spent a good deal of her youth helping to raise him and who now lives alone and unwell in a condo in Honolulu. It would be interesting to know whether her charismatic grandson made her aware that he was about to touch her with his grace and make her famous in this way. By sheer good fortune, she, too, could be a part of it all and serve her turn in the great enhancement.

This flabbergasting process, made up of glibness and ruthlessness in equal proportions, rolls on unstoppably with a phalanx of reporters and men of the cloth as its accomplices. Look at the accepted choice of words for the ravings of Jeremiah Wright: controversial, incendiary, inflammatory. These are adjectives that might have been—and were—applied to many eloquent speakers of the early civil rights movement. (In the Washington Post, for Good Friday last, the liberal Catholic apologist E.J. Dionne lamely attempted to stretch this very comparison.) But is it “inflammatory” to say that AIDS and drugs are wrecking the black community because the white power structure wishes it? No. Nor is it “controversial.” It is wicked and stupid and false to say such a thing. And it not unimportantly negates everything that Obama says he stands for by way of advocating dignity and responsibility over the sick cults of paranoia and victimhood. [snip]

If you think Jeremiah Wright is gruesome, wait until you get a load of the next Chicago “Reverend,” one James Meeks, another South Side horror show with a special sideline in the baiting of homosexuals. He, too, has been an Obama supporter, and his church has been an occasional recipient of Obama’s patronage. And perhaps he, too, can hope to be called “controversial” for his use of the term house nigger to describe those he doesn’t like and for his view that it was “the Hollywood Jews” who brought us Brokeback Mountain. [snip]

To have accepted Obama’s smooth apologetics is to have lowered one’s own pre-existing standards for what might constitute a post-racial or a post-racist future. It is to have put that quite sober and realistic hope, meanwhile, into untrustworthy and unscrupulous hands. And it is to have done this, furthermore, in the service of blind faith. Mark my words: This disappointment is only the first of many that are still to come.

Big Media will dress up Bosnia misstatements and passport “breachings” in order to protect Big Media tool Barack Obama. But a lot of voters are beginning to catch on to the flim flam man.

“Lord of the Rings” actor Sean Astin and former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend will be joining former President Bill Clinton and his daughter Chelsea on their campaign swing Monday through Indiana.

Townsend, who’s the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy and a former Maryland lieutenant governor, will appear with Bill and Chelsea Clinton at Dyngus Day and Solidarity Day events in South Bend to support Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential bid.

Dyngus Day is a Polish holiday that celebrates the end of Lent, but in South Bend it’s more of a political event that brings out elected leaders and candidates.

Chelsea Clinton will be joined by Astin, who starred in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy and the Notre Dame football movie “Rudy,” during an appearance in Bloomington.

U.S. Rep. John Murtha on Tuesday announced his endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, saying she is “best qualified to lead our nation.”

The Johnstown Democrat’s announcement comes as both Clinton and Democratic front-runner Barack Obama set up shop in Pennsylvania in preparation for the state’s important April 22 primary.

“I’ve known Sen. Clinton for 15 years,” Murtha said in a statement released by his campaign committee.

“I know that she continually reaches out for opinions and ideas, not just from our nation’s leaders, but from all Americans.”

Murtha is one of the most powerful Democrats in the House, and his endorsement could carry weight in the 12th Congressional District, where he has served for 34 years.

His backing carries added importance this year because he is a “superdelegate” – a party official who is free to support any candidate at the Democratic National Convention in August. [snip]

Last month, Murtha said he would not choose sides in the race and pledged to be “very careful in my evaluation of both candidates.”

In Tuesday’s statement, Murtha offered a glowing endorsement of Clinton.

“In 10 months, President Bush will leave office. Our country is worse off today than when he took office over seven years ago,” Murtha said. “Senator Clinton is the candidate that will forge a consensus on health care, education, the economy and the war in Iraq.”

* * *

From the Out of Iraq Caucus:

”As firm opponents of the Iraq war, we believe there is no higher priority for the next President of the United States than ending this war, and we believe there is no one better prepared and more committed to bringing this war to a responsible conclusion than Hillary Clinton. The best way to honor the sacrifices of our brave young men and women in uniform is to bring them home.

“Yesterday I donated $10.00. Today I donated $15.44 and I wish I could donate more. I am a poor college student struggling to survive financially on my own, but instead of buying extra things for myself, I am spending extra money on Hillary because I BELIEVE IN HER.”

“I just gaven another $20.44 for Hillary’s campaign. I truly believe that Hillary will lead us back to where we need to be both economically and for a real change in our government. America, just keep on believing in Hillary, I supported her in the beginning and I’ll support her always… By the way: I really want my vote to count.”

David Hampton (1964-2003) was an American con artist who gained infamy in the 1980s after milking a group of wealthy Manhattanites out of thousands of dollars by convincing them he was Sidney Poitier’s son. His story became the inspiration for a play and later a movie, titled Six Degrees of Separation. [snip]

Hampton began employing the persona of “David Poitier” to cadge free meals in restaurants. He also persuaded at least a dozen people into letting him stay with them in their homes or to give him money, including Melanie Griffith; Gary Sinise; Calvin Klein; John Jay Iselin, the president of WNET; Osborn Elliot, the dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism; and a Manhattan urologist. He told some of them that he was a friend of their children, some that he had just missed his plane to Los Angeles and that all his luggage was on it, some that his belongings had been stolen. [snip]

Typically, his story was colorful. Hampton claimed to have been mugged upon arriving in Seattle early for a work assignment for Vogue magazine. He was to interview Bill Gates but was suddenly in peril as his wallet was stolen and nothing could be replaced until that weekend was over. Hampton managed to woo two friends within blocks of each other without them being aware that he was working them both. [snip]

Even after being caught as a con-artist, Hampton had continued his life of crime. He had duped a play co-ordinator by claiming he was the actor playing David Hampton in the successful play Six Degrees of Separation, but when caught, he denied knowing the play co-ordinator.

David Hampton was a flim flam artist. David Hampton was a con man. David Hampton exploited white guilt and white liberals eager to demonstrate how “down” they were with black people. Which brings us to Barack Obama and politically dumb white people.

What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.

Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.

We laughed then, we laugh again today, we’ll laugh again tomorrow. Poor dumb white person Andrew Sullivan, aching to be modern, to be seen as “liberal”, a cloying intellectual wannabe, trying more than a little too hard to have black friends, to be perceived as post-racial too.

Andrew Sullivan does not understand that the real post-racial figure in the world today is Barack Obama Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden, and that young Sullivanesque Pakistani Muslim are post racial.

Osama Bin Laden does not care at all if you are African-American, Jewish-American, Irish-American, White-American, Chinese-American, Indian-American, etc. All Osama Bin Laden cares about is that you are American. Then Osama will kill you. Or try to kill you. Osama Bin Laden is post-racial. Kill Americans. It’s that simple. Osama, does not care if you are black or white, ebony or ivory.

Dumb White Person – John Kerry.

He has an ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism. … .. Because he’s African American. Because he’s a black man who has come from a place of oppression and repression in through the years in our own country. We only broke the back of civil rights Jim Crow in the 1960s here. Everybody in the world knows this is a recent journey for America.

We can picture John Kerry, glass of white wine in hand, hugging extra hard with an extra large smile the black person he just met. Dumb White Person, trying too hard. But hey, vote for Obama – he’s black. Dumb White People.

Keith Kakugawa was a close friend of Obama’s at the Punahou School. (He appears in “Dreams” as a revised character named “Ray” who may be a composite of more than one Obama friend.) He says that Obama, being a dark-skinned kid growing up in a white household, sensed that something was amiss. “He felt that he was not getting a part of who he was, the history,” says Kakugawa, who is also of mixed race. He recalls Obama’s reading black authors —James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, Langston Hughes—looking for clues. Keith didn’t know at first that Obama’s given name was Barack. “We were in the library and there was a Malcolm X book,” Kakugawa tells NEWSWEEK. “He grabbed it and looked at it and he’s checking it out, and I said, ‘Hold on, man. What you gonna do? Change your name to something Muslim?’ He said, ‘Well, my name is Barack Obama.’ And I said, ‘No it isn’t.’ And we got in an argument about that in the library and they had to tell us, ‘Shhhh’.”

Back in Hawaii in the 1970s, it could seem that everyone was some kind of a minority. The fact that Obama was half-black and half-white didn’t matter much to anyone but Obama, Kakugawa says: “He made everything out like it was all racial.” On one occasion, Obama thought he’d gotten a bad break on the school basketball team because he was black. But Kakugawa recalls his father’s telling the teenager, “No, Barry, it’s not because you’re black. It’s because you missed two shots in a row.” (Here, Kakugawa’s memory is different from Obama’s. The Ray character in the book is the one obsessed with being discriminated against.)

Amazing how the recollections of Obama’s friends over and over again conflict with Obama’s fictionalized accounts of his life story.

OBAMA: I will be honest with you that I didn’t have that many conversations with him over the last year just because I have been so busy. I haven’t been going to church. I wasn’t hearing a lot of these comments. The ones that are most offensive are ones that I never knew about until they were reported on. I had had conversations with him in the past – in fact from the day I first met him — about some of his views. Understand this, something else that has not been reported on enough is despite these very offensive views, this guy has built one of the finest churches in Chicago. This is not a crackpot church. Witness the fact that Bill Clinton invited him to the White House when he was having his personal crises. This is a pillar of the community and if you go there on Easter on this Easter Sunday and you sat down there in the pew you would think this is just like any other church. … So I don’t want to suggest that somehow, the loops you have been seeing typifies the services all the time. That is the danger of the YouTube era. It doesn’t excuse what he said. But it gives it some perspective.

Q: Would the speech have come as a surprise to Wright?

OBAMA: No, I think he recognizes. When some these remarks first came to light were a year ago, and I actually called him and it created some tensions that were reported in the newspapers. He understood that his perspective on some of these issues were very different from mine and hopefully we could agree to disagree on some of these issues. I wasn’t familiar with some of the most offensive remarks that had come up otherwise we probably would have a more intense conversation.

Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s controversial sermons. [snip]

Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage.

“I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial,” Obama said at a community meeting in Nelsonville, Ohio, earlier this month.

Of course, yesterday’s Easter sermon devalued the horrific lynchings in the south and the sufferings of a certain Christian founder:

The new pastor of Barack Obama’s church delivered a defiant defense of its retiring reverend Sunday, comparing media coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. to a modern-day lynching that resembles Jesus’ death at the hands of the Romans.

In a sunrise Easter sermon, Rev. Otis Moss III never mentioned Wright by name, but implied that his mentor, who has delivered sermons in which he likened the U.S. to the Ku Klux Klan and declared it damned for its “state-sponsored terrorism,” is facing the same challenges Jesus did.”No one should start a ministry with lynching, no one should end their ministry with lynching,” Moss said.

“The lynching was national news. The RNN, the Roman News Network, was reporting it and NPR, National Publican Radio had it on the radio. The Jerusalem Post and the Palestine Times all wanted exclusives, they searched out the young ministers, showed up unannounced at their houses, tried to talk with their families, called up their friends, wanted to get a quote on how do you feel about the lynching?” he continued.